U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said Saturday that he doesn't believe that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom. Santorum's comments to The Times are a shift from his position of several years ago, when he wrote in a Washington Times editorial that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom."

But on Saturday, the Republican said that, "Science leads you where it leads you."

Santorum was in Beaver Falls to present Geneva College President Kenneth A. Smith with a $1.345 million check from federal funds for renovations that include the straightening and relocation of Route 18 through campus.

Santorum's comments about intelligent design come at a time when the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power, an alternative to the theory of evolution, has come under fire on several fronts.

A federal trial just wrapped up in which eight families sued Dover Area School District in eastern Pennsylvania. The district's school board members tried to introduce teaching intelligent design into the classroom, but the families said the policy violated the constitutional separation of church and state. No ruling has been issued on the trial, but Tuesday, all eight Dover School Board members up for re-election were ousted by voters, leading to a fiery tirade by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.

Robertson warned residents, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city."

Santorum said flatly Saturday, "I disagree. I don't believe God abandons people," and said he has not spoken to Robertson about his comments.

Though Santorum said he believes that intelligent design is "a legitimate issue," he doesn't believe it should be taught in the classroom, adding that he had concerns about some parts of the theory.

"If faith baised issues should not be taught in schools, then evolution (as it applies to the origin of man) should not be taught there either."

He didn't say that faith based issues should not be taught in schools, he said they shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. Your use of the construction 'faith based issues' demonstrates why this is eminantly correct.

Ah, this is just typical MSM pitting one religious person against another. Santorum is Catholic so he is pro-evolution. No surprise there. Of course he won't argue in favor of teaching a theory he disagrees with, though it would be nice if he had the class to support debate. Clearly the media long ago gave up on true political debate. In the media, the deck is always stacked in favor of liberals.

At this point I do not care whether intelligent design wins or not. It's not my theory entirely either. I just like the debate. But I don't care because I do not believe in the public school system. They are anti-Christian in every way -- every last one of them.

9
posted on 11/13/2005 4:00:56 PM PST
by The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. Ps. 14:34)

I think most of his conservative reputation is built on the fact the Left savaged him that one time when he suggested (quite correctly) that homosexual marriage would lead to other deviances being similarly accepted. The Left biliously hates him for that and says he's a "radical, extremist right-wing nut". Hence, we like him.

Yes, God DID do it. That gravity, thermodynamics and all the laws of physics can mostly be explained does not negate the God Who created it or sustains it.

That you do not believe it is not the universal measuring stick for others. That you deny it does not invalidate it. And the in-your-face simpleton labels you throw back at the believer is a purely sanctimonious retort. Faith required in the astronomical possibility of evolution is far greater than a faith required to believe in God, but the God Whom I choose to believe in is far more complex and powerful than that of evolution .so, why is that so simpleton?

17
posted on 11/13/2005 4:16:30 PM PST
by ICE-FLYER
(God bless and keep the United States of America)

Remember the Garden of Eden?Genesis Chapter 3, verse 4. "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"....Gen. 3:23-24 "23. therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Or how about the Flood?Genesis 6:13-14 "13. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14. Make thee an ark..."

And perhaps you also don't believe in Sodom & Gomorrah? Genesis 19:24-25. "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven. 25. And he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground."

I wonder if this habit of supposedly Christian-subscribing politicians reading out of existence these clear expressions of God's righteousness...and previous practice of "abandonment" of sinning people (those who consciously abandon God)...is a good indication of a similar inclination by these politicians to disregard the U.S. Constitution?

18
posted on 11/13/2005 4:19:13 PM PST
by Paul Ross
("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)

I hate to break the news to you, but evolution has been sustained as a scientific theory for 146 years. That's longer than most current scientific theories of physics and chemistry have been sustained.

Intelligent design has been sustained as a scientific theory for a grand total of zero years. To be clear, that's zero followed by an infinite number of zeros.

Too bad he learned a little too late that replacing science with mythology is a losing issue

Actually it is the other way around, since Darwinian origin is in fact pure religion, and the case for Intelligent Design is based in science. Hence Santorum is merely running with the shallow-thinking herd of hard-core secularists who oppose true science and open inquiry.

25
posted on 11/13/2005 4:26:05 PM PST
by Paul Ross
("The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the govt and I'm here to help)

You're arguing the wrong point. The real issue -- the one that will have consequence -- is what it looks like to the rest of the world, including the scientific and business communities, if a state adopts ID.

Are you inadequate online? Are you feeling inferior because you have no education? Are you so stupid that no one will respond to you? When they do respond, is it only point out your errors in spelling, grammar and logic? Would you like to become the life of the thread? Then be a troll! Yes, now you too can be a real internet troll!

Trolls always have a good time, and their posts get lots of responses. As a troll, you're sure to be the center of attention. Other trolls will praise your posts. Never again will your comments be ignored, merely because you don't know what you're talking about. And as a troll, you'll enjoy the power you have to ruin any thread just by showing up and trolling. Oh, the fun!

Trolling is easy. It's simple. And the beauty of it is ... you don't have to know anything! Here's a complete catalog of an evolution troll's intellectual inventory. Just print out this toolkit, and use one or two items at random every time you post. Don't worry if someone refutes you. Just repeat your earlier post. Then keep on trolling! They'll go crazy! Guaranteed!

This Theory Explained for its misuse is common for the evolutionist. It is accurate but slick in its presentation. It leaves itself an out if you read it with the word phenomena.

Just because something is observable does not mean it is fully explainable. This is the wiggle room the evolutionist needs to keep their theory as the only acceptable form of knowledge describing our origin. Yet in all of this I have never heard why there can be laws of physics that had to be violated to make it possible. The 2nd law of thermodynamics had to be violated for the theory of evolution to move from idea to fact. Things had to go from disorder to order for it to have happened. Oh, I do get explanations, but they are point of view, not based upon the law they firmly believe in.

30
posted on 11/13/2005 4:28:45 PM PST
by ICE-FLYER
(God bless and keep the United States of America)

Too bad for us conservatives that some in our ranks have decided to use a political forum to decide scientific issues. From my experience on these forums, those who push for the exclusion of evoution or the inclusion of ID or creationism in the curriculum, demonstrate a very limited understanding of, and education in, science. Then there are those who feel their religious faith is threatened by science...they are our equivlaent to the Taliban and, as such, represent a real scourge to the Conservative Movement.

I have to agree. Who is Robertson to say such a thing because a few folks in a courtroom and on a school board have made such actions? I be a lot of folks in that area don't even know about this whole hub-bub.

36
posted on 11/13/2005 4:33:20 PM PST
by ICE-FLYER
(God bless and keep the United States of America)

Evolution is a theory. The lineage of single cell to man is not a solid line. Evolution does occur. That is an observable fact. That still does not prove that man evolved by the theory of evolution. Therefore, anyone who believes in the theory is merely accepting it on faith.

Rudder, I would be careful with the "Taliban" label. I think thats garbage. You would have to call the founders that because they did not see God in the classroom as an enemy to Science and that evidence is pleantiful.

41
posted on 11/13/2005 4:35:45 PM PST
by ICE-FLYER
(God bless and keep the United States of America)

he's cracking up. whats next? Rick's gonna say is Roe v Wade is cool too!! now he's just one more Rino in the herd.

I can't believe I once touted lil' Rickie as presidental material. Evan sported a "Santorum08" tagline till the 04primary. Now he doesn't miss a chance to rub my nose and conservative values in the sh*t.

You're arguing the wrong point. The real issue -- the one that will have consequence -- is what it looks like to the rest of the world, including the scientific and business communities, if a state adopts ID.

It will look ridiculous; that goes without saying. BTW, the laws of thermodynamics were stated in their earliest form just 140 years ago. Relativity came along 90 years ago. Quantum mechanics came along 80 years ago. These have all been sustained a shorter time than has evolution.

The real issue though is how adopting ID will undermine the scientific and technological progress of America.

I wonder if this habit of supposedly Christian-subscribing politicians reading out of existence these clear expressions of God's righteousness...and previous practice of "abandonment" of sinning people (those who consciously abandon God)...is a good indication of a similar inclination by these politicians to disregard the U.S. Constitution?

God does not abandon people. Santorum is correct.

If he did, there would be no opportunity for repentance, no chance to turn back.

Instead of poring over the Old Testament, read Christ's words about the Good Shepherd, who will abandon the 99 in search of the 1.

Oh, and read the different situations in which Jesus went to sinners to bring them to Him.

The Old Testament is not a reflection of Christian attitudes, and should not be presented as such. Jesus brought a new way of living.

If I pour coffee in a cup, why is there coffee in the cup? A) Because of my actions B) Because of a combination of physical laws which caused it to happen, such as coffee being in the pot, the pot being tipped over the cup, gravity etc. C) Both. (And countless other details, including the fact that some farmer grew the coffee beans, who used some tools and supplies from other folks etc.)

I prefer answer A). It is simple and pragmatic. Am I wrong to do so? Is the simplest explination (all other things being equal) usually the best?

50
posted on 11/13/2005 4:39:27 PM PST
by AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.